DNA Backlog Reduction: Preventable Crimes

Example from Pennsylvania

DNA technology is evolving rapidly and many states are considering whether to expand DNA databases or invest in DNA casework investigations. In order to inform the discussion of these issues, NIJ commissioned an independent study to ascertain the size of and reasons for the nation's backlog of DNA evidence. The resulting report included the list of cases presented here. This list of cases is not exhaustive, does not identify the perpetrator or victim, and is not a reflection on the criminal justice agencies involved. These cases would remain unsolved if not for extraordinary detective work by dedicated criminal justice professionals in these agencies.

Case studies presented on this site are from an NIJ-funded independent study. Points of view or opinions in the resulting report are those of the authors and do not represent the official position or policies of the United States Department of Justice.

TWO PREVENTABLE RAPES

In 1994, an elderly woman was raped in her home by a stranger. This case was followed in 1998 by two similar attacks on elderly women—one of whom lived independently before the attack but was particularly traumatized and moved to a nursing home thereafter. She died before the case was solved. DNA linked all three cases to one unidentified offender.

A person known to police became a suspect in the case when detectives realized the modus operandi was similar to a local known repeat offender who targeted elderly victims. The offender's parole officer supplied detectives with an envelope that had been sent by the suspected person, and DNA from the saliva was determined to be consistent with that of the attacker. Detectives subsequently procured a search warrant for a blood sample, and that lead to a match between the three crimes and this specific offender.

Preventable Crime: The offender's criminal record included two separate felony convictions for a series of home invasion burglary crimes committed against elderly victims. His first sentence began in 1987, and he was released on parole in 1992. The second sentence began in 1995. If Pennsylvania had required DNA from felony burglaries in either 1992 or 1995, this repeat offender could have been linked to the 1994 rape, thereby preventing two rapes in 1998.

FIVE PREVENTABLE RAPES

In 2002, an unknown assailant in the Pittsburgh-area raped or attempted to rape six women and assaulted two other women. The youngest victim among these women was 14. In each case, the suspect approached the victim from behind, attempted to make conversation, and either made threats with a gun or displayed a firearm.

The suspect was eventually apprehended when his last victim shot him. The woman, who worked as a security guard, was approached by the offender in question in a park and she narrowly escaped him after he threatened her life. After reporting the incident to police, she continued her walk and was again approached by the same man. This time, instead of running away she shot the assailant twice in the stomach and then notified police. The offender in question has been linked to several of the crimes noted through DNA testing, and he is currently awaiting trial on multiple charges.

Preventable Crime: The offender's felony record included convictions in 1997 and 2002 for felony receiving of stolen property, and a 2001 conviction for felony theft. This offender's most recent release from incarceration occurred just weeks before the first rape. If the state had required DNA from all convicted felons at any point since 1997, the offender's DNA profile would have been on record and potentially could have identified him after the first rape, thereby preventing the subsequent 5 rapes. Pennsylvania still does not collect DNA from these felons.

NIJ Funded Study

The cases are from National Forensic DNA Study Report and were developed using basic assumptions. For a full discussion on the review methodology that led to the conclusions presented here, see Section VI. "Forensic DNA and Crime Prevention." The report and case studies were prepared by Smith Alling Lane in partnership with Washington State University through the support of a grant awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice (Grant 2002-LT-BX-K 003). Points of view or opinions in this report are those of the authors and do not represent the official position or policies of the United States Department of Justice.